Faculty Fostering Collaborative Learning and Personal and ...cpr.indiana.edu/uploads/AIR 2012 (CL_PSR).pdf · Faculty Fostering Collaborative Learning and Personal and Social Responsibility

Faculty Fostering Collaborative Learning and Personal and Social Responsibility

Tony Ribera, Amy K. Ribera, Allison BrckaLorenz, Ph.D., & Thomas Nelson Laird, Ph.D.

Indiana University

Center for Postsecondary Research

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement

Authors’ Note

Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum in New Orleans, LA,

June 2012. All correspondence should be addressed to Amy Ribera ([email protected]),

Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47401.

mailto:[email protected]

Running head: COLLABORATIVE LEARNING 2

Abstract

The interactions experienced by undergraduates through collaborative learning (CL) are

paramount for academic and personal development. Yet, little is known about the faculty who

employ CL teaching techniques, and the academic context in which it is likely to happen. Using

data from over 1,400 faculty members, this study identifies demographics and course

characteristics that are predictive of faculty using CL in their selected course section. Findings

reveal discipline, class size, gender, race/ethnicity, and time spent reflecting on teaching

practices are predictive of faculty fostering collaborative learning experiences. Further, using CL

is positively linked to promoting various aspects of personal and social responsibility, an

essential learning outcome.


Faculty Fostering Collaborative Learning and Personal and Social Responsibility

For over a quarter-century, there has been a growing national interest in the quality of

undergraduate education in the United States. In the early 1980s, reports like A Nation at Risk

(The National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) and Involvement in Learning (The

National Institute of Education, 1984) challenged colleges and universities to increase academic

rigor and aspire for institutional excellence. The Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1993)

encouraged colleges and universities to reposition their focus on student learning and to better

address the needs of students. By putting student learning first, institutions of higher education

would set higher expectations, define clear learning outcomes, and systematically assess student

learning (The Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1993).

In 1987, Chickering and Gamson sought to assist institutions in their efforts to improve

teaching and learning by highlighting seven principles of good practice. Among them,

Chickering and Gamson (1987) identified cooperation among students as an effective

educational practice where student learning is enhanced by engaging in collaborative

assignments which require them to share ideas and respond to the ideas of others (Bosworth,

1994; Marcum Gerlach, 1994). Examples of collaborative learning activities include study

groups and team-based research projects (Gross Davis, 1993; Kuh, 2008). As institutions were

encouraged to shift from a focus on instruction to a focus on producing student learning (Barr &

Tagg, 1995), collaborative learning continued to emerge (Ramsen, 2003).

Research has shown that undergraduate students are more engaged in learning when

faculty members employ collaborative learning techniques (e.g., Barkley, Cross & Howell

Major, 2005; Colbeck, Campbell & Bjorklund, 2000). Students attending institutions where

faculty utilized collaborative learning techniques felt more supported and reported greater gains


across a host of learning and developmental areas (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2004). Despite

knowing much about the effects of collaborative learning on undergraduate education, little is

known about the faculty who tend to use collaborative learning in their courses as well as the

course conditions in which students are likely to experience these practices. Further, the

relationship between employing collaborative learning strategies and the amount of emphasis

faculty members place on other outcome is unknown. To test whether a connection exists, we

examined whether the use of collaborative learning is associated with promoting an essential

liberal learning outcome, personal and social responsibility (AAC&U, 2009).

Review of the Literature

In an effort to prepare citizens for twenty-first century challenges, institutions are

encouraged to promote personal and social responsibility among students. This includes

engaging in civic engagement and ethical reasoning as well as active involvement with diverse

populations (AAC&U, 2009). Dey and Associates (2009) found faculty, administrators and

students strongly agreed that institutions should promote personal and social responsibility;

however, only about one-third of students felt their undergraduate education helped them to

develop skills in this area. In general, faculty, administrators and students thought more time

should be spent on developing students’ personal and social responsibility (Dey & Associates,

2008).

A growing body of empirical evidence has found a positive relationship between

collaborative learning and outcomes related to personal and social responsibility (e.g., Cabrera et

al., 2002; Cruce, Wolniak, Seifert, & Pascarella, 2006; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2004). O’Neill

(2012) recently described collaborative learning as an engaged learning process that has a

positive impact on areas like academic motivation, political and social involvement, and


openness to diversity. Also, by participating in collaborative learning, undergraduate students are

more likely to achieve academically and exhibit positive views toward the learning process

(Colbeck, Campbell & Bjorklund, 2000). In general, collaborative learning has been deemed

paramount for academic success as well as cognitive development (Barkley, Cross & Howell

Major, 2005). This review of the literature focuses on the relationship between collaborative

learning and educational outcomes, specifically practical skills and openness to diversity, as well

as personal and cognitive development. Additionally, we discuss faculty members’ roles in

promoting collaborative learning.

Practical Skills and Diversity

Often times, college students may be accustomed to competitive or individualistic

classroom environments where they do not rely on peers to further their learning. In fact,

assignments may be graded on a curve which results in students focused on their own

achievement as well as preventing the achievement of others (Barkley, Cross & Howell Major,

2005; Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998). However, when compared to competitive and

individualized learning experiences, students achieve greater learning through collaborative

experiences (Marcum Gerlach, 1994).

Qin, Johnson and Johnson (1995) explored the effects of cooperative and competitive

exercises on problem-solving among elementary and secondary school students, college students

and adults. Through a meta-analysis of 46 relevant studies between 1929 and 1993, the authors

found that cooperation led to greater problem-solving abilities. Similarly, Terenzini et al. (2001)

looked at differences between collaborative and individualistic classroom environments,

comparing gains of students in engineering courses that used collaborative learning to gains of

students in traditional lecture and discussion engineering courses. The authors found that


collaborative learning produced significantly greater gains in design skills and communication

skills when compared to traditional lecture/discussion classes.

Looking at diversity, scholars suggest students benefit from collaboration with students

who have diverse learning styles and abilities (e.g., Colbeck, Campbell & Bjorklund, 2000) and

are from diverse backgrounds (e.g., Marcum Gerlach, 1994). Research shows that collaborative

learning has a significantly positive effect on students’ openness to diversity (Cabrera et al.,

2002; Cruce, Wolniak, Seifert, & Pascarella, 2006).

Personal and Cognitive Development

Collaborative learning is essential for one’s identity and cognitive development. Similar

to Umbach and Wawrzynski (2004), Cabrera et al. (2002) found collaborative learning to be a

predictor of student gains in personal development. Looking at Chickering’s (1969) Vectors of

Identity Development, we see a close alignment with collaborative learning. Through

interactions and group processing, students develop connections with peers, learn to balance their

interests with those of others, and develop confidence in their abilities and a sense of identity

(Chickering, 1969).

Collaboration with peers has also been described as an essential prerequisite for one’s

cognitive development (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998). By promoting a sense of

interdependence in the college classroom, faculty members help students recognize the

importance of peers in their individual achievement (Bosworth, 1994; Bruffee, 1987; Johnson,

Johnson & Smith, 1991). Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) expand on this, writing,

“Peers become more legitimate sources of knowledge and individuals are likely to improve their

ability to think analytically” (p.131). In addition to peers emerging as knowledgeable resources,

students also begin to see themselves as creators of knowledge, which breaks down the


traditional classroom hierarchy (Bosworth, 1994; Bruffee, 1987). By designing collaborative

learning assignments, instructors establish an environment where students can learn from and

teach one another (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998).

Faculty Roles

Faculty have been encouraged to take an intentional approach to collaborative learning

through designing educational activities and providing effective grouping and monitoring

(Barkley, Cross & Howell Major, 2005; Miller, Trimbur & Wilkes, 1994; Rau & Heyl, 1990).

Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998) and Rau and Heyl (1990) provide faculty members with

information on the various forms of collaborative learning and the tools to promote collaborative

learning in their courses. This includes assigning roles and teaching students the necessary social

skills for successful peer interactions. Should collaborative learning lack intentional assignments

and monitoring, there is a greater chance of negative feelings as well as a drop in quality

(Flannery, 1994). Faculty must ensure collaborative learning experiences include encouragement

among peers, individual accountability and group processing and that the objectives behind

collaborative learning are clearly communicated (Gross Davis, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1975).

Despite knowing much about the facilitation of this effective educational practice, little is

known about the actual faculty who utilize collaborative learning techniques. Additionally,

despite research that highlights specific gains associated with collaborative learning, little is

known about how the facilitation of collaborative learning relates to faculty emphasis on

essential learning outcomes, including personal and social responsibility (AAC&U, 2009). Using

data from the 2011 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, this study seeks to identify

subpopulations of faculty who are most or least likely to use collaborative learning in their


selected course and whether use of collaborative learning is linked to the promotion of personal

and social responsibility.

We know that collaborative learning is important for student learning and development,

but because student engagement often depends on the engagement of faculty, it is important that

we understand the intentions and habits of faculty. Therefore, the following research questions

guided this study:

1. To what extent is the use of collaborative learning as a teaching method affected by

course characteristics (e.g., enrollment size, course level, and disciplinary area)?

2. To what extent is the use of collaborative learning as a teaching method affected by

faculty characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, and rank)?

3. To what extent is collaborative learning associated with the promotion of personal and

social responsibility?

Methods

Data Source

The data for this study come from the 2011 administration of the Faculty Survey of

Student Engagement. The FSSE is an annual survey designed to complement findings from

students who participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the current

or previous academic year. The survey collects information about faculty members’ expectations

and perceptions of students as well as information about how faculty structure their classroom

activities to encourage desirable learning outcomes and behaviors, and how they organize their

discretionary time on other professorial activities (e.g. research, teaching, advising, and service).

Over 19,000 faculty members from 157 baccalaureate degree-granting institutions participated in

2011. Response rates for institutions ranged from 19% to 93%, with an average of 46%.


Sample

A subset of 25 institutions was administered extra items at the end of the core survey.

The extra item set asked faculty to think about a course section that they had taught over the last

academic year. Then they were asked how often they incorporated collaborative learning

strategies in the selected course. About 1,450 faculty provided responses to the core survey as

well as the extra item set. After the deletion of missing data, the final sample was reduced to

1,434. Table 1 shows the sample represents a wide cross-section of faculty and institutional

types. Institutional characteristics of the sample closely resemble US figures by control type,

Carnegie classifications, and enrollment size. The sample is slightly overrepresented by medium-

sized institutions. Also over a quarter of the institutions were categorized as Historically Black

College and University’s (HBCUs). As for faculty characteristics, one-sixth of the sample

consists of Black faculty which is more than the national average of 5% according to figures

from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). However, the other minority populations

and academic rank closely resemble national figures. It is also slightly underrepresented by men

and faculty who are employed full-time.

Independent Variables

For the independent variables, academic (e.g., rank and employment status) and

demographic characteristics (e.g., gender and race/ethnicity) were isolated for this study (see

Appendix B). Further, since faculty are encouraged to take an intentional approach when

implementing collaborative learning (Barkley, Cross & Howell Major, 2005; Miller, Trimbur &

Wilkes, 1994; Rau & Heyl, 1990), which may affect their discretionary time, one item from the

core survey about time spent improving teaching was included as an independent measure.


Table 1

Sample Statistics by Institution and Faculty Characteristics N % US Institution Characteristics1 (N=25) Control Private 17 68% 67% Public 8 32% 33% Carnegie Classification Research universities 4 16% 17% Master’s colleges and universities 10 40% 44% Baccalaureate colleges 9 36% 39% Other 2 8% - HBCU 7 28% - Institutional Size Small (fewer than 1,000) 4 16% 19% Medium (1,000-9,999) 19 76% 66% Large (more than 10,000) 2 13% 16% Faculty Characteristics2 (N=1,434) Gender Men 750 52% 60% Women 684 48% 40% Race/ethnicity Asian/Asian American 68 5% 8% African American/Black 225 16% 5% Latino/Hispanic 41 3% 3% Other race/ethnicity 57 4% - White (non-Hispanic) 1,043 73% 82% Rank Lecturer/Instructor 308 22% 19% Assistant professor 396 28% 20% Associate professor 373 26% 18% Full professor 357 25% 22% Employment status Part-time 340 24% 34% Full-time 1,094 76% 66% 1 US percentages are based on data from NCES (2010 IPEDS Institutional Characteristics). 2 US percentages are based on data from NCES (2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty)


Respondents had the option to select from a list of eight categorical response options that ranged

from zero to more than 30 hours per week. By using the midpoint of each of the response option,

data were recoded into a continuous variable. For the last category, “more than 30,” a value of 33

was assigned. On average, faculty reported spending about 5 hours per week reflecting on ways

to improve their teaching.

Information about the type of course that faculty selected were also collected by the core

survey. Table 2 shows about two-thirds of the respondents selected an upper division course and

half chose a course that met a general education requirement. Many responded about a course

that had less than 20 students (43%) and only 11% choose a section with more than 50 students.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Selected Courses Characteristics and Time Spent Reflecting on Teaching Practices (N=1,434) N % General education requirement 720 50% Upper division 828 58% Size of selected course section 1-20 students 623 43% 21-50 students 648 45% More than 50 students 163 11% Disciplinary area Arts and humanities 346 24% Education 88 6% Business 158 11% Biological sciences 73 5% Engineering 54 4% Physical sciences 175 12% Health and other professionals 129 9% Social sciences 207 14% Other fields 204 14% Faculty also taught in a wide range of disciplinary areas. One-fourth taught a course in the arts

and humanities, one-sixth in the social sciences and about one-tenth in business and physical


sciences. Faculty teaching courses in education, biological sciences, and professional fields were

also represented.

Dependent Variables

Six items from the CL experimental item set (see Appendix A) were combined to form an

internally consistent scale (α= 0.78). Faculty were asked about how often they provided students

with opportunities to give a course presentation with a group of other students; exchange

feedback with other students to prepare course assignments; learn course material by asking and

answering questions of other students; write a paper with other students for course credit;

participate in a study group for the course; and exchange feedback with other students after

taking an exam.

The second measure (α= 0.84) was derived from the core survey which represents the

extent to which faculty promoted personal and social responsibility in their selected course.

Specifically, faculty were asked to what extent their selected course section was structured so

that students developed an understanding of themselves and other people from different racial

and ethnic backgrounds as well as a personal code of values, ethics, and deepened sense of

spirituality (see Appendix A).

Analyses

Two analyses were conducted using ordinary least squares modeling. Course and faculty

characteristics (see Appendix B) were introduced into the first model to help explain the variance

in faculty uses of collaborative learning in their selected course sections. The course variables

included disciplinary area, course level, general education requirement, and class size. The

faculty variables were female, race/ethnicity, rank, employment status, and time spent reflecting

on teaching practices. The second model applied the same list of independent variables but also


added collaborative learning to help explain the variance in faculty promotion of personal and

social responsibility. This model tested the relationship between faculty uses of CL and their

promotion of the essential learning outcome while controlling for faculty and course

characteristics. All the dichotomous independent variables were grand mean centered prior to

entering into the models. Also the continuous independent variable, time spent reflecting on

teaching practices, was unstandardized in both analyses.

Results

Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for items included in the collaborative learning scale.

Overall, it appears some teaching strategies were more utilized than others. For instance, faculty

members were more likely to encourage students to exchange feedback with each other in order

to prepare a course assignment. They were also more likely to foster peer learning by having

students ask and answer each other’s questions. Only about one-fifth of the faculty reported they

had their students write a paper with other students for course credit.

Table 3 Item-level Frequencies for Collaborative Learning Scale

Often/Very Often (%)

Give a course presentation with a group of other students 50%

Exchange feedback with other students to prepare course assignments

60%

Learn course material by asking and answering questions of other students

58%

Write a paper with other students for course credit 19%

Participate in a study group for your course 30%

Exchange feedback with other students after taking an exam (e.g., debating correct answers

39%


Regression results presented in Table 4 suggests a significant portion of the variance in

faculty uses of collaborative learning (R2 =.14) was explained by some aspects of the course

context and faculty characteristics. Among the course variables, size of the classroom, general

education requirement, and disciplinary area were significant predictors. Compared to course

sections with less than 20 students, the model revealed teaching a larger course (50 or more

students) had a negative effect (B=-.40; p<.001) on the use of collaborative learning. Also

collaborative learning strategies were more used in general education courses (B=.14; p<.05)

when controlling for the faculty and other course characteristics. The model showed faculty in

education, business, engineering, and health and other professions were significantly more likely

to use collaborative learning compared to faculty teaching in the biological sciences.

As for faculty characteristics, the model revealed that women tended to use collaborative

learning practices 15% of a standard deviation more than men. Controlling for course and the

other faculty measures, White and Asian/Asian American faculty were less likely to use

collaborative learning in their selected course section compared to the other the racial/ethnic

categories. Specifically, Black faculty and faculty who selected “other race/ethnicity” tended to

emphasize these activities two-fifths of standard deviation more than their White peers. Further,

Latino and Hispanic faculty (B=.29; p<.05) reported using collaborative learning significantly

more than White faculty. Employment status was also a significant predictor. That is, those who

were employed full-time promoted collaborative learning 17% of a standard deviation more than

part-time faculty when controlling for the other faculty and course variables. A positive

relationship was also found between the time spent reflecting on teaching practices and the use

of collaborative learning; for every one-hour increase, the Collaborative Learning scale increased

by 5% of a standard deviation. Interestingly, significant differences in uses of collaborative


Table 4 Regression Results for Faculty Uses of Collaborative Learning in Selected Course Section (N=1,434) Model 1 B SE Constant 0.00 0.02 Course Characteristics Disciplinary area1 Arts and humanities 0.19 0.12 Education 0.34 ** 0.15 Business 0.51 *** 0.13 Engineering 0.54 *** 0.17 Physical sciences 0.08 0.13 Health and other professionals 0.55 *** 0.14 Social Sciences 0.07 0.13 Other fields 0.20 0.13 Lower division -0.05 0.06 General education requirement 0.14 * 0.06 Class size2 21-50 students -0.05 0.06 More than 50 students -0.40 *** 0.09 Faculty Characteristics Female 0.15 ** 0.05 Race/ethnicity3 Asian/Asian American 0.09 0.12 African American/Black 0.43 *** 0.07 Latino/Hispanic 0.29 * 0.15 Other race/ethnicity 0.40 ** 0.13 Rank4 Lecturer/Instructor 0.11 0.08 Assistant professor -0.06 0.07 Associate professor -0.05 0.07 Full-time 0.17 * 0.07 Time spent reflecting on teaching practices 0.05 *** 0.03 Model Summary Adjusted R-square 0.14 SE of the estimate 0.92 F-change statistic 11.87*** Note. All dichotomous measures were grand mean centered. 1 Reference group was biological sciences. 2 Reference group was classroom enrollment 20 or less students. 3 Reference group was White (non-Hispanic). 4 Reference group was full professor. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001


learning were not found among faculty of different academic ranks or by course level (upper

versus lower division).

Table 5 reveals frequencies for items representing the Personal and Social Responsibility

scale. Overall, it appears faculty respondents tended to emphasize some learning outcomes more

than others. While only a small portion of the respondents structured their course so that students

gain a deepened sense of spirituality, well over half said their course helped students develop an

understanding of themselves as well as a personal code of values and ethics.

Table 5 Item-level Frequencies for Personal and Social Responsibility Scale

Quite a bit/Very much (%)

Understanding themselves 57%

Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 48%

Developing a personal code of values and ethics 56%

Developing a deepened sense of spirituality 17%

For the second regression analysis, course and faculty characteristics were introduced

into the model as controls in order to test the relationship between collaborative learning and the

promotion of personal and social responsibility. In this model, the Collaborative Learning scale

served as an independent measure and the Personal and Social Responsibility was the dependent

measure. Table 6 suggests that the model explained a significant portion (R2 =.35) of the

variance. Further, controlling for course and faculty characteristics, faculty who used

collaborative learning (B=.34; p<.001) are more likely to promote personal and social

responsibility in their selected course sections. Time spent on reflecting on teaching practices

(B=.02; p<.001) had a weak but significant relationship with the Personal and Social

Responsibility scale once controls were entered.


Table 6 Regression Results for Faculty Promoting Personal and Social Responsibility (N=1,434) Model 1 B SE Constant 0.00 0.02 Course Characteristics Disciplinary area1 Arts and humanities 0.60 *** 0.11 Education 0.81 *** 0.13 Business 0.27 ** 0.12 Engineering -0.12 0.15 Physical sciences -0.26 ** 0.11 Health and other professionals 0.74 *** 0.12 Social sciences 0.65 *** 0.11 Other fields 0.41 *** 0.11 Lower division -0.12 ** 0.05 General education requirement 0.40 *** 0.05 Class size2 21-50 students -0.01 0.05 More than 50 students -0.10 0.08 Faculty Characteristics Female 0.08 * 0.05 Race/ethnicity3 Asian/Asian American 0.25 ** 0.10 African American/Black 0.19 *** 0.06 Latino/Hispanic 0.16 0.13 Other race/ethnicity -0.01 0.11 Rank4 Lecturer/Instructor 0.10 0.07 Assistant professor 0.05 0.06 Associate professor 0.01 0.06 Full-time -0.07 0.06 Time spent reflecting on teaching practices5 0.02 *** 0.02 Collaborative learning in selected course5 0.34 *** 0.02 Model Summary Adjusted R-square 0.35 SE of the estimate 0.81 F-change statistic 34.14*** Note. All dichotomous measures were grand mean centered. 1 Reference group was biological sciences. 2 Reference group was classroom enrollment 20 or less students. 3 Reference group was White (non-Hispanic). 4 Reference group was full professor. 5 Standardized prior to entry into the model. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001


As for course characteristics, the model revealed that faculty who taught lower division

courses emphasized personal and social responsibility 12% of a standard deviation less than

those teaching upper division courses. Controlling for other course and faculty characteristics,

faculty tended to promote personal and social responsibility skills two-fifths of a standard

deviation more in general education courses than in non-general education courses. The model

also indicated that faculty teaching in the physical sciences (B=-.26; p<.001) tended to promote

social and personal responsibilities the least while their colleagues in education (B=.81; p<.001)

and health and professional fields (B=.74; p<.001) emphasized it the most in their selected

course sections. The non-significant predictors in this model were class size, academic rank, and

employment status.

Discussion

Collaborative learning is one of the many effective educational practice highly

encouraged to improve the quality of undergraduate education on college campuses (AAC&U,

2009; Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Students who engage in collaborative learning gain

cognitive and social skills aligned with the needs of a global economy such as becoming more

open to diverse perspective (Cabrera et al., 2002; Cruce et al., 2006), improved communication

skills (Terenzini et al., 2001), and increased engagement in social and political issues (O’Neill,

2012). Yet, in order for students to receive these benefits, it takes time and careful planning on

the part of faculty (Barkley, Cross & Howell Major, 2005; Miller, Trimbur & Wilkes, 1994; Rau

& Heyl, 1990). The aim of this study is to explore attributes of faculty and course conditions

associated with promoting collaborative learning. The second part of this study focused on the

plausible relationship between faculty employing collaborative learning in their selected course

and the amount of emphasis placed on personal and social responsibility.


To begin, variation in faculty use of collaborative learning was partly explained by

faculty characteristics and context of the course. Significant differences were found among

gender and race which was not surprising considering results from similar studies. As the case in

this study, women and faculty of color are often cited as using active teaching practices more

than men and White faculty, respectively (Kuh, Nelson Laird, Umbach, 2004; Nelson Laird,

Garver, & Nikodé-Dossett, 2011). Some researchers point to position of the power that faculty

may take in the classroom (Grasha, 1994; Lacey et al., 1998). For example, women and faculty

of color are more likely to serve as a facilitator rather than an expert in the classroom (Grasha,

1994; Lacey et al., 1998) which leads them to rely on active learning strategies like collaborative

learning to teach students. More work is needed to understand why these differences exist even

after controlling for other confounding factors like disciplinary area and classroom size.

Differences were also apparent by employment status. On average, part-time instructors

used collaborative learning strategies less than their full-time colleagues. Future research should

investigate why this might be the case. One plausible explanation is that to effectively implement

collaborative learning as a teaching strategy, a considerable amount of time is needed for

planning. Part-time faculty may simply have no time to do this. Further, part-time faculty may

be less likely to take full advantage of campus resources like teaching centers and faculty

developers. This study found that a positive relationship exists between time spent reflecting on

teaching and use of collaborative learning. Although it is unclear if collaborative learning

requires that faculty spend more time reflecting on their teaching practices or if faculty who

reflect on their teaching practices tend to use collaborative learning, future research should

investigate if the relationship is mediated by employment status.


Some aspects of the course context were also significant predictors of faculty using

collaborative learning strategies. For instance, collaborative learning was less emphasized in

non-general education courses than courses that met a general education requirement.

Disciplinary area also had a unique effect on faculty using collaborative learning in the selected

course. Faculty in education, business, engineering, and health and other professional fields

reported using collaborative learning significantly more than their colleagues teaching in the

biological sciences. This finding corresponds to research literature that suggests learning

outcomes like openness to diversity and teamwork are positively related to collaborative

learning. For fields like business and engineering, faculty may use collaborative learning to

develop students’ skills in problem solving and communication (Terenzini & et al, 2001). In

teacher education, faculty members are encouraged to use collaborative learning to prepare

future teachers to meet the needs of diverse learners (Hamer & Oyler, 2004). In the health

professions where information is quickly changing, teaching strategies like team-based and

problem-based learning are employed to help students gain the skills they need to effectively and

efficiently solve problems. Centers for teaching and faculty developers may develop best

practices based on these examples so that other disciplines may implement collaborative learning

in their core curriculum.

We know that various course and faculty characteristics affect the use of effective

teaching practices, and this study strengthens that finding. What was unknown before was

whether or not there was a relationship between faculty use of collaborative learning and faculty

promotion of personal and responsibility. In the second part of the study this relationship was

tested. It makes sense that working with others would contribute to a person’s understanding of

themselves and others, but we now have evidence that despite faculty and course characteristics


this is, in fact, the case. Both collaborative learning and personal and social responsibility are

important for students’ learning and development, and it appears that faculty doing one,

enhances the other. It is essential then that faculty are given the tools and support to incorporate

these effective practices into their courses.

Conclusion

This study sought out to better understand course characteristics and faculty who employ

collaborative learning in their courses. Findings may help campus assessment professionals to

identify pockets of faculty who need additional help incorporating collaborative learning into

their selected courses such as part-time faculty. Further, results identify a teaching technique

positively associated with an essential learning outcome, personal and social responsibility.

Faculty developers and assessment professionals may want to encourage and support faculty to

use collaborative learning in order to develop students’ personal and social responsibility.


References Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2009). College learning for the new global

century: A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education &

America’s Promise. Washington, DC: Author.

Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P., & Howell Major, C. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A

handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate

education. Change, 27(6), 13-25.

Bosworth, K. (1994). Developing collaborative skills in college students. In K. Bosworth & S.J.

Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques.

New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 59 (pp. 25-32). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Bruffee, K. A. (1987). The art of collaborative learning: Making the most of knowledgeable

peers. Change, 19(2), 42-47.

Cabrera, A. F., Crissman, J. L., Bernal, E. M., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T.

(2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and diversity.

Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20-34.

Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate

education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.

Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college

students learn from group projects. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1). 60 – 83.

Cruce, T. M., Wolniak, G. C., Seifert, T. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). Impacts of good


practices on cognitive development, learning orientations, and graduate degree plans

during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 365-383.

Dey, E. L., & Associates. (2008). Should colleges focus more on personal and social

responsibility? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Dey, E. L., & Associates. (2009). Civic responsibility: What is the campus climate for learning?.

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory,

research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Flannery, J. L. (1994). Teacher as co-conspirator: Knowledge and authority in collaborative

learning. In K. Bosworth & S.J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying

processes and effective techniques. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 59

(pp. 15-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grasha, A.F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model,

facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching, 42(4), 142-149.

Gross Davis, B. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation,

competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college

faculty instructional productivity (1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, No. 4).

Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human

Development.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college:

What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 27-35.


Kuh, G.D., Nelson Laird, T.F., & Umbach, P.D. (2004). Aligning faculty and student behavior:

Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(5), 24-31.

Lacey, C.H., Saleh, A., & Gorman, R. (1998). Teaching nine to five: A study of the teaching

styles of male and female professors. Paper presented at the Annual Women in Education

Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, Oct 11-12.

Marcum Gerlach, J. (1994). Is this collaboration? In K. Bosworth and S.J. Hamilton (Eds.),

Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques. New Directions

for Teaching and Learning, No. 59 (pp.5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, J. E., Trimbur, J., & Wilkes, J. M. (1994). Group dynamics: Understanding group success

and failure in collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth & S.J. Hamilton (Eds.),

Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques. New Directions

for Teaching and Learning, No. 59 (pp. 33-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative

for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.

The National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of

American higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

Nelson Laird, T.F., Niskodé-Dossett, A.S., & Kuh, G.D. (2009). What general education courses

contribute to essential learning outcomes. Journal of General Education, 58(2), 65-84.

Nelson Laird, T.F., Garver, A.K., & Niskodé-Dossett, A.S. (2011). Gender gaps in collegiate

teaching styles: Variations by course characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 52,

261-277.

O’Neill, N. (2012). Promising practices for personal and social responsibility: Findings from a


National Research Collaborative. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges

and Universities.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1968). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A

scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and

problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129-143.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Rau, W., & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborative learning and

social organization among students. Teaching Sociology, 18(2), 141-155.

Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J. M., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2001,

January). Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains.

Journal of Engineering Education, 123-130.

Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2004, June). Faculty do matter: The role of college

faculty in student learning and engagement. Paper presented at the annual forum of the

Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations

for higher education. Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation.


Appendix A Component Items and Reliability Coefficients for Dependent Measures

Faculty Uses of Collaborative Learning (α= 0.78) During the current school year, about how often do you provide students with opportunities to do each of the following in your selected course section? (Never, Sometimes, Often, Very often) Give a course presentation with a group of other students Exchange feedback with other students to prepare course assignments Learn course material by asking and answering questions of other students Write a paper with other students for course credit

Participate in a study group for your course Exchange feedback with other students after taking an exam (e.g., debating correct

answers.

Faculty Promotion of Personal and Social Responsibility (α= 0.83) To what extent do you structure your selected course section so that students learn and develop in the following areas? (Very little, Some, Quite a bit, Very much) Understanding themselves Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds Developing a personal code of values and ethics Developing a deepened sense of spirituality


Appendix B

Independent Variables

Name Description Selected Course Characteristics Disciplinary area1 Biological sciences2, Arts and humanities, Business, Education,

Engineering, Physical sciences, Health and other professional fields, Social sciences, Other

Course level 0 = Upper division; 1 = Lower division Gen Ed Requirement 0 = No; 1= Yes Class size1 20 students or less2, 21-50 students, More than 50 students Faculty Characteristics Gender 0 = Man; 1 = Woman Race/ethnicity1 White (non-Hispanic)2, Asian/Asian American, African

American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, Other race/ethnicity Rank1 Full professor2, Associate professor, Assistant professor,

Lecturer/Instructor Employment status 0 = Part-time; 1 = Full-time Time spent reflecting on ways to improve teaching practices3

Recoded into continuous variable

1 Coded dichotomously (0 = not in group, 1 = in group)

2 Reference group 3 Hours per week were estimated using the midpoint from the following response options (0, 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, 21-30, More than 30). For the last category, a value of “33” was assigned.

Documents

Faculty Fostering Collaborative Learning and Personal and ...cpr.indiana.edu/uploads/AIR 2012 (CL_PSR).pdf · Faculty Fostering Collaborative Learning and Personal and Social Responsibility